Measuring peer influence susceptibility to alcohol use: Convergent and predictive validity of a new analogue assessment

Abstract

Research on peer socialization rarely examines individual differences in adolescents’ susceptibility to peer influence, perhaps because few theories or methods have elucidated how susceptibility is operationalized. This study offers a new analogue measure of peer influence susceptibility in adolescence that is adapted from sociological theory. A preliminary examination of this new paradigm included the study of individual differences in susceptibility to peer influence, convergent validity correlates, and predictive validity by examining decision-making on the task as a moderator of the prospective association between friends’ and adolescents’ engagement in one form of real-world risk-taking. Participants included 714 adolescents (54% female; 46.1% White, 20.9% Black, 24.2% Hispanic/Latinx, 6.2% mixed race or other) aged 15–18 years (M = 16.1). Participants completed the Peer Analogue Susceptibility Task, peer nominations, and self-report measures at Time 1 and repeated an assessment of their own alcohol use 1 year later. Participants’ friends also reported their own alcohol use. Results indicated concurrent associations with peer influence susceptibility, rejection sensitivity, perceived importance of peer status, peer-nominated popularity, and self-reported resistance to peer influence. Furthermore, among adolescents demonstrating average and high levels of peer influence susceptibility on the task, greater perceived alcohol use among friends was associated with their own alcohol use 1 year later. Findings offer preliminary evidence for the convergent and predictive validity of a new approach to study peer influence susceptibility.

Keywords

Adolescence peer influence susceptibility alcohol use

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

J. P.

Loeb

Kansky

Davis

(2020). Beyond susceptibility: Openness to peer influence is predicted by adaptive social relationships. International Journal of Behavioral Development. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025420922616

Allen

J. P.

Porter

M. R.

Christy

F. C.

(2006). Leaders and followers in adolescent close friendships: Susceptibility to peer influence as a predictor of risky behavior, friendship instability, and depression. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 155–172. https://doi.org/10.10170S0954579406060093

Allen

J. P.

Porter

M. R.

McFarland

F. C.

Marsh

McElhaney

K. B.

(2005). The two faces of adolescents’ success with peers: Adolescent popularity, social adaptation, and deviant behavior. Child Development, 76(3), 747–760. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00875.x

Brechwald

W. A.

Prinstein

M. J.

(2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Youth risk behavior survey questionnaire. Retrieved September 24, 2019, from https://www.cdc.gov/yrbs

Choukas-Bradley

Giletta

Cohen

G. L.

Prinstein

M. J.

(2015). Peer influence, peer status, and prosocial behavior: An experimental investigation of peer socialization of adolescents’ intentions to volunteer. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(12), 2197–2210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0373-2

Dirghangi

Laursen

Puder

Bjorklund

D. F.

DeLay

(2014). Self-reported rates of interpersonal conflict vary as a function of questionnaire format: Why age-related trends in disagreement (and other events) may not be what they seem. Journal of Adolescence, 37(7), 965–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.07.003

Downey

Feldman

S. I.

(1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327–1343. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327

Fisher

J. C.

(2018). Exit, cohesion, and consensus: Social psychological moderators of consensus among adolescent peer groups. Social Currents, 5(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496517704859

10.

Granovetter

(1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420–1443. https://doi.org/10.1086/226707

11.

Green

Myerson

Macaux

E. W.

(2005). Temporal discounting when the choice is between two delayed rewards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 1121–1133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.1121

12.

Kindermann

Gest

S. D.

(2008). Assessment of the peer group: Identifying naturally occurring social networks and capturing their effects. In Bukowski

W. M.

Laursen

Rubin

K. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (2nd ed., pp. 100–107). Guilford Press.

13.

Lejuez

C. W.

Read

J. P.

Kahler

C. W.

Richards

J. B.

Ramsey

S. E.

Stuart

G. L.

Strong

D. R.

Brown

R. A.

(2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.75

14.

McGloin

J. M.

Povitsky Stickle

(2011). Influence or convenience? Disentangling peer influence and co-offending for chronic offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(3), 419–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427810393019

15.

Monahan

K. C.

Steinberg

Cauffman

(2009). Affiliation with antisocial peers, susceptibility to peer influence, and antisocial behavior during the transition to adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1520–1530. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017417

16.

Parkhurst

J. T.

Hopmeyer

(1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431698018002001

17.

Popp

Laursen

Kerr

Stattin

Burk

W. J.

(2009). Modeling homophily over time with an actor-partner interdependence model. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1028–1039. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.1028

18.

Prinstein

M. J.

Aikins

J. W.

(2004). Cognitive moderators of the longitudinal association between peer rejection and adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(2), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JACP.0000019767.55592.63

19.

Prinstein

M. J.

Brechwald

W. A.

Cohen

G. L.

(2011). Susceptibility to peer influence: Using a performance-based measure to identify adolescent males at heightened risk for deviant peer socialization. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1167.

20.

Robinson

Schumacker

R. E.

(2009). Interaction effects: Centering, variance inflation factor, and interpretation issues. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 35, 6–11.

21.

Rudolph

K. D.

Bohn

L. E.

(2014). Translating social motivation into action: Contributions of need for approval to children’s social engagement. Social Development, 23(2), 376–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12050

22.

Steinberg

Monahan

K. C.

(2007). Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1531–1543. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531

23.

Veronneau

M.-H.

Dishion

T. J.

(2010). Predicting change in early adolescent problem behavior in the middle school years: A mesosystemic perspective on parenting and peer experiences. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 1125–1137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9431-0

24.

Vitaro

Pedersen

Brendgen

(2007). Children’s disruptiveness, peer rejection, friends’ deviancy, and delinquent behaviors: A process-oriented approach. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 433–453. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579407070216